If a union is created to represent the interst of all players, then the union is capable of agreeing to a CBA with the NCAA (and all their member schools),and that CBA can restrict various rights of the players. Similar to pro sports.... the union agrees that all players relinquish their rights to be free agents (for a period of time after they are drafted), for various other considerations (such as the pension agreement) provided by the "ownership".

Yeah, this is a slippery slope, and the NCAA and schools need to quickly get their act together to respond to this.

But on the other hand, the players do not want to kill the golden goose.

The Northwestern players initiative may ultimately yield positive results. The deep concerns go beyond whether or not collective bargaining among players become the norm.Coaches salaries and bonuses at many places have become obscene. These guys are not CEOs' of multi-national corporations. Most are employed/contracted by state institutions. Sure they are contracted for a set duration of time pending extensions, but most people could live comfortably for a lifetime for what some of these guys are paid for one or two years.Excluding perhaps Northwestern and a few others that are not so bad, these big-time college football and basketball programs are recruiting 18 and 19 year olds, many of which are immature and lack the academic skills for what is generally acceptable for regular students. Actual interest in attending classes and studying is mostly lacking. If they have playing time, they get treated as rock stars, with lavish praise and 'gifts' channeled to them, and their families, through 'wink-wink' means. Those that get in trouble with the law, often have a public relations and support contingent aimed to get them through processes that are not at the disposal of students without high profile athletic connections.Universities provide the athletes with personal tutors, mentors, placement in 'friendly' classes and majors with inflated grading and low expectations from the designated and cooperating professors. They receive registration preferences, and now are gravitating to online classes whereby discovery of who actually is doing the real work has real limitations.And those recruiting visitation weekends? More than a few schools/programs have a network of female-student 'companions' readily available to provide entertainment and encouragement to return.NCAA and conference oversight has become a joke. The NCAA is political and grossly inconsistent and has had botched investigations. The NCAA bans the State of South Carolina from hosting regional and national tournaments because they fly the Confederate battle flag on the State House grounds at the memorial for the deceased soldiers. Given the level of exploitation of student athletes by institutions under the banner of the NCAA, they are nothing but hypocrites. It's nice to know the NCAA showed its indignation about the exploitation of children in a manner as if courts and a state didn't care.Unless admission standards everywhere go through a really controlled clearinghouse for all student athletes, and scholarship limits are tightened and better monitored, it will only get worse. And, schools such as Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, etc., can continue to load-up on 5 and 4 star recruits by varying means and these top recruits are not more disbursed among the lot of sponsoring universities supposedly within the same conference and divisional levels, then the pattern of results shall be relatively unchanged.If the collection of universities cannot profoundly reform what they do and how they do it, then the mass corruption of the system shall force change.Maybe it is time to really pay the college athletes, bargain with them, relinquish all academic expectations and requirements, and regulate them to being mercenaries. They with have the privilege of using the universities facilities and training, and compete under the banner of each university, respectedly.Each university/conference can contract with a professional franchise (NFL) for added sponsorship. Broadcasting networks shall adjust accordingly. Boosters can do their deeds out in the open.

The Northwestern players initiative may ultimately yield positive results. The deep concerns go beyond whether or not collective bargaining among players become the norm.Coaches salaries and bonuses at many places have become obscene. These guys are not CEOs' of multi-national corporations. Most are employed/contracted by state institutions. Sure they are contracted for a set duration of time pending extensions, but most people could live comfortably for a lifetime for what some of these guys are paid for one or two years.Excluding perhaps Northwestern and a few others that are not so bad, these big-time college football and basketball programs are recruiting 18 and 19 year olds, many of which are immature and lack the academic skills for what is generally acceptable for regular students. Actual interest in attending classes and studying is mostly lacking. If they have playing time, they get treated as rock stars, with lavish praise and 'gifts' channeled to them, and their families, through 'wink-wink' means. Those that get in trouble with the law, often have a public relations and support contingent aimed to get them through processes that are not at the disposal of students without high profile athletic connections.Universities provide the athletes with personal tutors, mentors, placement in 'friendly' classes, majors, and grading, with low expectations from the designated professors. They receive registration preferences, and now are gravitating to online classes whereby discovery of who actually is doing the real work has real limitations.And those recruiting visitation weekends? More than a few schools/programs have a network of female-student 'companions' readily available to provide entertainment and companionship.NCAA and conference oversight has become a joke. The NCAA is political and grossly inconsistent and has had botched investigations. The NCAA bans the State of South Carolina from hosting regional and national tournaments because they fly the Confederate battle flag on the State House grounds at the memorial for the deceased soldiers. Given the level of exploitation of student athletes by institutions under the banner of the NCAA, they are nothing but hypocrites. It's nice to know the NCAA showed its indignation about the exploitation of children in a manner as if courts and a state didn't care.Unless admission standards everywhere go through a really controlled clearinghouse for all student athletes, and scholarship limits are tightened and better monitored, it will only get worse. And, schools such as Alabama, FSU, Ohio State, etc., can continue to load-up on 5 and 4 star recruits by varying means and these top recruits are not more disbursed among the lot of sponsoring universities supposedly within the same conference and divisional levels, then the pattern of results shall be relatively unchanged.If the collection of universities cannot profoundly reform what they do and how they do it, then the mass corruption of the system shall force change.Maybe it is time to really pay the college athletes, bargain with them, relinquish all academic expectations and requirements, and regulate them to being mercenaries. They with have the privilege of using the universities facilities and training, and compete under the banner of each university, respectedly.Each university/conference can contract with a professional franchise (NFL) for added sponsorship. Broadcasting networks shall adjust accordingly. Boosters can do their deeds out in the open.

No offense sec03, but I despise that argument/attitude.

For every big time recruit/NFL bound athlete, there are tons more that will not benefit from this setup.

Take Alabama's #1 2014 recruiting class (per rivals), about 2/3rds are 4* or better, #6 A&M is about 50% 4/5*s, #12 Miami is about a third 4/5*s, #20 Texas has about a fourth 4/5*s, #27 Oklahoma St has 1/7th 4/5*s and #34 Baylor is about 1/12th 4/5*s.

That's just the top 25% of all of FBS college football. If every school in the 130 some odd FBS schools were like Alabama then I'd agree with the scenario you wrote above however most schools (more than 50%) aren't even as good as Baylor and rarely get any 4/5*s.

Every year there are about 200-300 4/5* fb players coming out of high school. This system won't benefit even most of them, but for arguments sake let's just say it does. Team have 85 scholarship players a year, that's about 21 players a year per team that get recruited out of high school. 21 players times 130 teams equals 2,730 players a years minus about 300 players a year (that this system could work for) equals about 2430 players a year that most likely prefer the system as is without making any changes to the structure.

In basketball, we're talking about 350 teams which recruit about 4 players a year which equals 1400 players, of which only about 100 are 4/5*s.

But wait it gets worse. If these teams (assuming fb/bb) do split off what happens to the Title IX offset sports, and what off other sports like baseball, LAX, volleyball, track, ice hockey?

In order to fix this incredibiliy broken system (<sarcasm) you'd be benefiting at most 300 players a year that could get drafted in NFL/NBA (32NFLteams*7rounds=224, 30NBAteams*2rounds=60, 284+-a few undrafted free agents) at the sake of at least 10 times as many players (only counting FBS and D1 bball, if we add in FCS, D2, and NAIA that number skyrockets) who are going to just be uneducated meatheads struggling to make it in the CFL/Arena/D-league without a degree or most likely any chance to ever aquire one (as everyone knows that 20 year olds with cash never lasts long).

This also doesn't take into account the affect on Olympic sports like swimming/track and how they would be affected by such a ruling. While these student greatly benefit from not having to pay a private coach and free competitions, their sports don't earn money for the universities, and thus we could see them completely removed which would greatly hinder the depth of the U.S.'s teams every four years (yes we'll still have some stars with rich parents but the shear amount of talent in the US will decline).

Sure the systems need more enforcement, stricter academic admission guidelines (most JUCO players end up being very well rounded and mature extremely well), and enforcement for straight up pay for play, however I would like to see a stipend (for kids to be able to fly home for the holidays, buy a video games or what have you) and for some sort of blind trust in the athletes name, primarily for those stars that come along every few years like Vince Young, Reggie Bush, Tim Tebow, or Johnny Maziel (however every athlete would have one for team photos and other group shots) where the school negotiates a price for the athlete's image and likeness (in school uniforms/colors) and holds half the funds until the athlete finishes their eligibility AND graduates (can't just go pro or flunks out but actually graduates with a degree).

Still I think this system is still the best solution, the NBA tried to bypass college and it bit them in the butt, thus we have the one and done rule (soon to be two and done), and the NFL's attempt at establishing a minor league has failed too.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

You wonder if we're due for a comeback for the days that made Jim Thorpe a superstar.

The system as it stands blows. I really miss multi-sport athletes, and, yes, that's on how ridiculously skewed football has become. Not the recruiting part, but how the NCAA allows schools' football programs to basically control athletes' lives by exempting all of those exercises outside of the 20-hour rule.

You wonder if we're due for a comeback for the days that made Jim Thorpe a superstar.

The system as it stands blows. I really miss multi-sport athletes, and, yes, that's on how ridiculously skewed football has become. Not the recruiting part, but how the NCAA allows schools' football programs to basically control athletes' lives by exempting all of those exercises outside of the 20-hour rule.

The system is very flawed. The non-revenue, lower profile sports, add value to collegiate life and student development. They are not the problem other than they depend on the more popular big-time sports to help themselves many places. And these are the programs that often get cut and also get most impacted by Title IX.

The Jim Thorpe image is nostalgic. But some of these guys today play fb, then pick up the basketball (or maybe a bat). I wonder when some of them have the time or desire to be an actual student.

There's also a host of schools that don't make money off either fb or bb. There are big-time programs operating in the red, some for decades.

TBC, I am sure you understand my earlier posts contained deliberate cynicism and general sarcasm to emphasize a point. You get it.

Even as a SEC partisan, I know the conference is one of the very top operators in defining the trend. And they stay ahead of the game by doing more of what they have been doing. But there is also growing separation in the conference, as in others, as to resources and opportunities. My message is not so much about turning the clock back, but doing some needed re-structuring and revisions. For example, the 85 scholarship limit doesn't sound extreme, but a scholarship FCS program can function with 63 and they put 11 on the field for offense and defense as well. And really, recruiting is where oversight has often failed, and tactics have become so diverse, frequently unethical, and support a behavioral industry in itself driven by money often unseen.

I want to see college sports, including fb and bb, to have strengthened ties to the academic goals and student activities of the each college and university that sponsors such. It's part of a school's identity and mission and certainly is to be there for students, alumni, community, and other fans. Those that play are really students, and the criteria and treatment of them keeps that in mind.

But NFL-level salaries for some college coaches, compromising principles to gain more lucrative TV contracts, expansion/re-alignment driven by networks rather neighborly rivalries, cut-throat tactics to land recruits lacking in serious academic capabilities, schools getting sued because they want to leave one conference to join another, greater associations with corporate sponsors, etc., are going to further push the system into a franchise less bonded with academia and campus control. They are going to be so driven to get ahead, more casualties of the system will show, and the system could ultimately crush itself into something they never yearned to really do. The elite that thrive got elevated by the system. As they separate from the earlier means that made them special, their fundamental base disappears, and they become more subject to the market and external controls. They make it all about profit, they rise and fall with it. University governance will see it more as a contract, rather than a commitment to the university's real mission.

The idea of a 4 or 5 conference super-division is presented as a 'solution' by their advocates. I see it as more of a 'symptom' of a troubling movement that is getting more and more self-driven. Schools and conferences, outside the more privileged, trying to keep up, or to maintain, may not be problem as they get portrayed.

I would just hope reasonable reforms and constraints would be adapted by the universities themselves without overpowering outside influences. I am not optimistic though. But if they don't, it'll be a whole new enterprise, just not so disguised.

Not particularly tied to what I just said, here's a piece noting Northwestern University is appealing the ruling on a player's union:

[My message is not so much about turning the clock back, but doing some needed re-structuring and revisions.

What I think conference commissioners want is more deregulation, which, where it concerns college athletics, I think means going backwards. These schools don't want to pay the kids and they don't want Title IX restrictions either.

Northwestern's dilemma is going to be reconciling student athletes with non-renewable scholarships that hinge on academic and athletic performance who are unable to utilize the sheer depth of what's available at Northwestern. The gripe these kids have is that they claim they don't feel like they're students...they're more employees, and that's on Northwestern for not going outside of the NCAA's allowance for what's okay outside of the scope of the 20 hr./wk. rule. Unfortunately, Northwestern can't have it both ways: these kids are equals to their non-athletic peers or they are not. Someone's already judged they aren't. It might be knee-jerk for Northwestern to appeal, but it's obvious to someone with authority the schools are doing wrong by the kids...why even the mighty Northwestern can't act with more reason or accountability how they can remedy the situation instead of threatening to remove football or legally resorting to a "nuh-uh, no it's not" type of attitude, I think that's more frightening than kids ganging up for better representation.

This needs to be worked out in a comprehensive manner that translates to a multi-year CBA for all athletes that want to be "represented".

Otherwise every individual school with an athletics program has a mess on their hands.

I could literally see a school like Northwestern turn the tables on the athletes and threaten to shut down their athletics programfor those sports where the students want to have union representation.That might suddenly get their attention to "back off".

I don't see why Northwestern doesn't just play hardball with these kids--any student athlete who joins the union will lose their scholarship and will be asked to leave the university. Just because the courts say that they can have a union doesn't mean that Northwestern has to agree to "hire" union athletes.

I don't see why Northwestern doesn't just play hardball with these kids--any student athlete who joins the union will lose their scholarship and will be asked to leave the university. Just because the courts say that they can have a union doesn't mean that Northwestern has to agree to "hire" union athletes.

Hardball is fine...if concessions like guaranteed four-year scholarships and more open transfer privileges offered and rebuffed. At the very least, I think the schools should pony this up. This is something these kids are owed anyway. If the kids balk, unleash the fury, I say. If the schools won't even give this up, I'm all for the kids destroying the whole thing.

I don't see why Northwestern doesn't just play hardball with these kids--any student athlete who joins the union will lose their scholarship and will be asked to leave the university. Just because the courts say that they can have a union doesn't mean that Northwestern has to agree to "hire" union athletes.

Hardball is fine...if concessions like guaranteed four-year scholarships and more open transfer privileges offered and rebuffed. At the very least, I think the schools should pony this up. This is something these kids are owed anyway. If the kids balk, unleash the fury, I say. If the schools won't even give this up, I'm all for the kids destroying the whole thing.

Technically they can just say they are not renewing the scholarships and still enforce the transfer rules (must graduate or sit out a year and lose a year eligibility) while it sucks the players knew that was on the table when they unionized.

NWU could just take a ton of FCS/JUCO transfers and a huge freshman class next year and still field a team.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Speaking of what's happening in Illinois, and a bit on the amusing side, apparently the Illinois senate has a lot of excess time on their hands and are not spending it doing much research about college sports:

Speaking of what's happening in Illinois, and a bit on the amusing side, apparently the Illinois senate has a lot of excess time on their hands and are not spending it doing much research about college sports:

Thanks for this! I needed a good laugh! Frank the Tank's recent article discussed this same issue and, in his conclusion, Illinois-Chicago (UIC) should be that school --- bearing in mind, Frank understands the impossibility and impracticability of this happening.

It did get me thinking, in the current footprint of the B1G, what states could "double-down" with public schools that haven't already. Using AAU/URA (seems semi-equal to AAU) and FBS as the only requirements:

Slim pickings for the B1G. Personally, I would like to have seen Pitt in the B1G from the beginning, but I understand there's an issue with Penn St. I would also like to see Iowa St in, especially if the XII comes to its demise because I don't see Iowa St having much of a chance getting into any other major conference and would probably be stuck with either the Mt West or American. I know the market issues for having the State of Iowa as a market, let alone 2 schools in such a small state, but they're in a tough spot and I wish the best for them.

And to anyone who ever doubted that it was probably Illinois ahead of everyone who stood/stands in the way of Missouri's Big Ten entry, this matter should be near or at the top of the list to refute said doubt.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum